The assessee received the intimation dated March 28, under section\u00a0143(1)\u00a0on May 18, 2008. Since the time limit for filing a revised return under section\u00a0139(5)\u00a0had expired on March 31, 2008, it filed a rectification application under section\u00a0154. The Assessing Officer rejected the rectification application on the ground that the assessee ought to have filed a revised return on or before March 31, 2008.The assessee filed revision application which was rejected. The assessee filed second revision petition which was also rejected. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that\u00a0\u00a0 the rejection of the revision application filed by the assessee under section\u00a0264\u00a0was not justified as the Officers acting under the Income-tax Department were duty bound to extend the substantive benefits that were legitimately available to an assessee. The rejection of the application for rectification by the Assessing Officer under section\u00a0154\u00a0was unjustified, since the assessee was entitled to the substantive benefits under section\u00a010B\u00a0and the delay, if any, was attributed on account of the system. Even if the intimation dated March 28, 2008 was dispatched on the same day after it was signed, in all likelihood, it could not have been received by the assessee on March 31, 2008 to file a revised return on time.\u00a0 The assessee was entitled to rectification under section\u00a0154\u00a0of the Act. (AY. 2006-07)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 264 : Commissioner-Revision of other orders-Export of computer software-Omitting to claim exemption in return-Rejection Of Rectification-Revision application was rejected on the ground that delay in filing the revised return-Rejection of revision application was held to be not justified-Directed to allow the claim made u\/s. 154 of the Act. [S. 139(5), 143(1), 154, Art.226] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22190","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-5LU","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22190","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22190"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22190\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22191,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22190\/revisions\/22191"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}